Counties rebel over child protection

A rebellion by the counties over a new child-protection policy could cost three of the major bodies responsible for golf and its development funding of £1 million-plus from Sport England.

The counties are meeting the English Golf Partnership — comprising the English Golf Union, the English Ladies Golf Association and the Professional Golfers' Association — at Woodhall Spa today, and if they refuse to adopt the new child-protection manual, Safeguarding Children In Golf, the Sport England tap could be turned off.

Yorkshire are one county who say that they are happily prepared to go without the annual £7,500, which would be their share of the counties' spoils. Lancashire, Cumbria and Nottingham are of like mind.

Keith Dowdeswell, secretary of the Yorkshire Golf Union, said the Partnership were asking everyone "to jump through hoops" and that the guidelines in the child-protection manual were unnecessarily complex. "We don't want to knock what is a thoroughly well-produced reference book," he said, "but we would be better off with something simple and workable."

In the Midlands, where seven counties out of 10 indicated last week that they were against the document, a spokesperson picked out one sentence which, he said, illustrated "bureaucracy gone mad". If a child's parent fails to pick him or her up from the golf club, the organisers should call the police. "It is only in the guidelines, as opposed to the instructions," he said, "but if something were to go wrong, the powers-that-be could say that the recommendations were not followed.

"Everyone is aware of the need to protect children but, unlike other sports, the English Golf Union, with their emotive language, have contributed to a fear factor among volunteers. In Cumbria, the entire junior committee stood down when they saw the first draft – and the second, 83 pages, isn't much better."

There has also been concern among independent junior leagues. Martin Timlett, secretary of Kent's junior foursomes, said the legislation could well spell the end of his endeavours. For one, he said, he would lose some of the clubs involved because entries would be restricted to youngsters whose clubs had child-protection policies in place.

"Even the EGU's own National Junior Club championship's conditions of entry do not impose such a restriction," Timlett said. "I know our league will lose clubs if we do what we're being asked. I've worked too hard over 11 years to see it damaged in this way."

Timlett said that if he were to continue in his role, the overall responsibility for the safe-guarding of the juniors could fall on him, even if the youngsters were playing at a club who already had child-protection measures in place. "I can't see any of us accepting such a burden of responsibility," he said. "I fear that the most likely outcome is that all independent competitions will fold."

Sarah Miller, chair of the ELGA, said she could see both sides of the argument. She did not deny that the counties were having "to jump through hoops" to get Government money, but she did not see how those who wanted and needed the extra funding "can expect to get it with no strings attached".

Miller said child protection embraced more than people thought: "It can be about bullying parents or bullying kids. Things do happen in golf as in all other sports and, overall, the various precautions make good sense."

She also drew attention to the extent to which counties could benefit from the initiatives which must be adopted by those going down the English Partnership route.

Yet Dowdeswell is not alone in asking if the English Partnership really needs the Sport England money. Though EGU officialdom has said that the time has come to bring golf up to the same successful level as rugby, cricket, football and tennis, there are statistics to suggest that golf is already the best-placed in terms of individual participation.

There is a subsidiary argument about the percentage of the money which would be swallowed up by administration costs.